In a way, this is what facebook does. (I know this wont be a popular opinion, and actually, I hate that I said it but it seems true).

Not to get too technical but the High Court is the Supreme Court of Australia. It sits atop the Federal Court and the various state Supreme Courts. Each of those Courts, and the Federal Court, have appeals juristictions consisting of Banco (ie multiple) judges.

Here is part of section 71 of the Australian constitution for those who like evidence!

"The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. "

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/24.html link to judgement The following is from the summary - I think it is an interesting finding particularly with respect to the large damages payouts you get in those US cases: " The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs."

Can't one of you techi types make it so I can upload a song to my iphone that engages the other functions? ??

The Problem is NOT balance. Life is unbalanced - the problem is the incentive scheme. If, as suggested above, there is king or ruler and you can fight to be him or her then you have incentives to build yourself up to - and people to knock you down. As there will be people clamering to get to the top, there is a fight amongst equals and the slightly more stronger until you get to the top and kill the king. Current games, based on levels or classes, the only incentive is to get better and stronger. Not to claim possesstion of some land or people or whatever.... Imagine, if, being the king, you could make laws and tax people! (so long as you have the tax collectors ready to punish those who dont pay) The possibilities are endless.

ummm.... Since the invention of the doctrine of separation of powers - so at least since the ancient roman republic. Courts are their to balance the tyranny of the majority, and have in many cases done so significantly.

Actually, one right right we do enjoy here in Oz is the right to 'political communication'. It would be intersting to see if the abortion people who've been listed took issue with this in the high court what the outcome wouldbe... Indeed, one might take issue with the whole list on that basis...

Yes! I have often thought that this would be an amazing project. And, i have some great ideas... Only problem. I can't program.

Negotiating with Microsoft

A great choice of song. Banjo's Waltzing Matilda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waltzing_Matilda#Lyrics is an unofficial anthem in this country, and harking to our convict heritage, it brings to life the relaxed, disdainfully rebelliousness of Australia. That attitude, which has served us well, is now under threat in so many ways, of which this filter nonsense is but one. Also ironically, the version most people sing contains a very early instance of product placement for the Billy Tea company (see link above). A great choice of for a parody.

Well - I was wondering why the net's a bit slower today... Thought it was the random fluctuations I get from time to time but no... Sigh... Sad thing is, you mention this to people here and it's oh... Well, kinda bad, but meh..

What about http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com/ One wonders which site has the most number of x's?

Recently, I have read a number of stories in the same vain, and here I include things like distributing, without telling people, things that kill bot nets. Of course, if your fridge is talking to other peoples fridges, and so is you TV, shower and kettle, the possibility of breaches of privacy is there. On the other hand, there are clear benifits from doing so; as there are from killing the botnet and maybe from all this cloud computing stuff. As our technology starts to benifit from what might be considered a type of economy of scale through communicating with eachother, without our knowledge we move into the same lack of privacy a villager had when everyone in town knew everything about him or her. I genuinely wonder if it is worth it.